The case revolves around a dispute between Zaglebie Lubin S.A., a Polish football club, and Club Cerro Porteño, a Paraguayan football club, concerning the payment of training compensation for a player who transitioned from amateur to professional status. The player was registered as an amateur with Cerro Porteño from March 2002 to August 2006 before signing his first professional contract with Zaglebie Lubin in July 2006. Cerro Porteño claimed EUR 120,000 in training compensation, which Zaglebie Lubin contested, leading to proceedings before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC ruled in favor of Cerro Porteño, a decision Zaglebie Lubin appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including the applicability of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). It determined that the 2005 edition (RSTP 2005) was the most appropriate, as the key events—the player's first professional contract and registration—occurred after these regulations came into force. The panel also considered whether the absence of a player passport or delays in issuing an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) could justify refusing payment. It ruled that while a player passport is useful for evidencing a player's career, other documents, such as those provided by the Paraguayan Football Association, were sufficient. Delays in ITC issuance, even if proven, would not absolve Zaglebie Lubin from paying compensation.
On the merits, the panel upheld the DRC's decision, confirming the EUR 120,000 compensation. It rejected Zaglebie Lubin's argument that the amount was disproportionate, noting the club failed to provide compelling evidence to counter the FIFA-set rate of EUR 30,000 per season for a Category III club. The panel emphasized that the DRC's calculation was reasonable and aligned with regulatory standards.
The CAS dismissed Zaglebie Lubin's appeal, affirming the DRC's ruling. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to FIFA regulations and the validity of alternative evidence in training compensation disputes. It also clarifies that procedural issues, such as ITC delays, do not invalidate legitimate compensation claims. The case highlights the procedural and regulatory frameworks governing player transfers and training compensation in international football, reinforcing the principle that clubs must fulfill their financial obligations under FIFA rules.